וזאת הברכה

Q — The Torah's final parsha opens with 'וזאת' — and this is the blessing — with a connective vav. Connecting to what?

A — Kli Yakar's elegant answer: this final blessing connects to Moshe's first blessing of Bnei Yisrael back at the opening of Devarim — 'ה' אלהי אבותיכם יסף עליכם ככם אלף פעמים.' Chazal record that Yisrael complained: 'משה קיצבה אתה נותן לברכותינו' — you're limiting our blessings to a thousandfold. Moshe replied: 'זו משלי היא, וה' יברך אתכם.' The first blessing was 'משלי' — from Moshe himself. The vav of 'וזאת' attaches the dying Moshe's second blessing to the first, but flags the change in source: this one is 'לא משלו... אלא מצד היותו איש האלהים' — not from his personal capacity but as a vehicle of prophecy. The very title of this verse — 'איש האלהים' — is the inflection point. The blessings frame the book of Devarim: one from Moshe the man, one from Moshe the prophet.

Q — "וזאת הברכה אשר ברך משה" — where does the actual brachah begin? The standard reading is that the per-tribe pesukim starting at 33:6 ARE the brachah. Is there a reading where those pesukim are something else?

A — Sforno reads the per-shevet passages (33:6-24) as Moshe's tefillot to Hashem on behalf of the tribes — pleas, not blessings. The proof is grammatical: "דברי הברכה בכל מקום מדברים עם המבורך כאומרו 'אמור להם'." A brachah speaks to the recipient. The per-tribe sections speak about each tribe, in third person, to Hashem. The actual brachah is the closing five pesukim (33:25-29), where Moshe pivots into direct second-person address to Israel: "ברזל ונחשת מנעלך... אשריך ישראל מי כמוך עם נושע בה'." And the content of that brachah contains two distinctive national-level guarantees. First: "ברזל ונחשת מנעליך" — fortified borders such that "לא יכנסו בה אומות להלחם ולא יחמוד איש את ארצך מיראתך" — the model of Yehoshua's lifetime and the elders who outlived him. Second: "וכימיך דבאך" — a kingdom that does not rise and fall like the kingdoms of אומות העולם, whose fortunes track their mazalot ("הם תחת הנהגת צבאות השמים"). Israel's strength stays constant from youth into old age. The chiddush relocates the brachah from the famous middle to the under-noticed conclusion.

Q — How is the tension resolved between "כפה עליהם הר כגיגית" (a forced acceptance, leaving a "מודעא רבה לאורייתא") and "קימו וקבלו היהודים" — a renewed acceptance in the days of Achashverosh?

A — At Sinai, Israel reached the highest hashagah and SAW Torah as the necessary basis of existence — but their claim was that they could only sustain such acceptance in that revealed state ("מימינו" = right hand = open nissim); when divine governance is hidden in nature ("ידי יסדה ארץ" = left hand = הסתר), the original commitment could be disclaimed. In Esther's days, with hashgachah hidden and Israel enslaved to Achashverosh, yet they gave their very lives — THAT became קבלה שלמה. Hence "אף חובב עמים" — when Hashem favors the nations and Israel suffer, yet "ישא מדברותיך," THEN Torah becomes "מורשה קהילת יעקב," eternal inheritance against which no modaa works.

Q — The opening verses of V'Zot HaBracha (33:3-5) seem syntactically disjointed: "ישא מדברתיך" (he carries your words), then "תורה צוה לנו משה" (Torah commanded to us), then "ויהי בישורון מלך" (and there was a king in Yeshurun). How do they connect?

A — Ramban: it's a klal-prat structure spanning three pesukim. Verse 3's "ישא מדברתיך" is the klal — Israel always carries Hashem's words on their lips. WHAT words? The two prats follow: (1) verse 4 — "תורה צוה לנו משה" = the eternal commitment to Torah for all generations of קהלת יעקב, "לא נחליף ולא נמיר אותה לעולם." (2) verse 5 — "ויהי בישורון מלך" = acceptance of עול מלכות שמים, where the "מלך" is Hashem Himself (mentioned in v.2). These are the two things Israel constantly affirms — Torah ("בכלל") and malchut shamayim ("בפרט," which is the perat dibbur of אנכי). And THIS is the pesicha to the brachot: Israel deserves bracha because they accepted both Torah from Moshe and malchut shamayim directly from the Gevurah — "אם כן הנם ראויים לברכה."

Q — What does 'ויהי בישרון מלך בהתאסף ראשי עם יחד שבטי ישראל' teach about kingship in Israel?

A — Or HaChaim reads it as a charter for 'the establishment of the king in Israel.' The phrase 'בהתאסף ראשי עם' indicates that a king is appointed only by the Beit Din of 71 (the Sanhedrin), as Chazal teach; and 'יחד שבטי ישראל' adds that the public must be content with him — both judicial sanction and popular acceptance are required. He further hints that the monarchy's continued survival, not only its founding, depends on the unity of Israel's leaders: when the heads of the people gather together rather than acting separately, that very unity causes the tribes of Israel to be united as one.

Q — Naftali's allotment included the Kinneret and a strip of southern shoreline — a lot of water, not great for agriculture. Naftali had real grounds to be bitter about his portion. Why is he called 'שבע רצון' precisely here?

A — That's the point. 'שבע רצון' is not a description of objective circumstances — it is praise of Naftali's middah. Despite the agricultural disadvantage of inheriting sea and southern coast ('ים ודרום ירשה'), Naftali was content with what he got, sameach b'chelko. The reward of that middah is the next phrase — 'ומלא ברכת ה'.' A person who is content with little merits to be filled with much. The blessing is causal: 'בזכות שהוא שבע רצון.' Naftali's contentment with what objectively looked like a poor inheritance is what made Hashem turn it into 'מלא ברכת ה'.'

Q — Moshe's bracha to Re'uven reads: "יחי ראובן ואל ימת ויהי מתיו מספר." The first two clauses are positive — let him live, let him not die. But "ויהי מתיו מספר" reads naturally as "let his people be few" — since Ibn Ezra holds "כל דבר שיספר הוא מעט" (anything that can be counted is small). How can a blessing end with "let his population be small"?

A — Ibn Ezra resolves it with one of his most famous peshat tools: "מושך עצמו ואחר עמו" — a word (or letter) appearing once governs both the clause it sits in and the next clause. The negation "ואל" in "ואל ימת" extends forward — "יחי ראובן ואל ימת ו[אל] יהי מתיו מספר": let him live, let him not die, and let his people not be few. The negative does double duty across two verbs. Ibn Ezra catalogs many parallels in his commentaries — including (1) the unforgettable "ולא למדתי חכמה ודעת קדושים אדע" (Mishlei 30:3): "ולא" governs both clauses — "I did not learn wisdom and I do not know holy knowledge" (not: "I know holy knowledge"). (2) The famous "וארא אל אברהם... באל שדי ושמי ה' לא נודעתי להם" (Shemot 6:3): the bet of "באל שדי" carries through — "I appeared in El Shaddai and in My Name Hashem I was not known." (3) "לא תפרעו ולא תפרמו ולא תמותו ועל כל העדה יקצוף" (Vayikra 10:6): the "ולא" carries forward — "and not on the whole community will He be angry." This Reuven verse is the textbook case of the principle. R. Aharon HaKohen Sarjado (Rav Hai Gaon's rebbe) read "ויהי מתיו מספר" literally as "let his men be numerous" — taking "מספר" to mean "large number" — but Ibn Ezra rejects that: counting always implies smallness. The "מושך עצמו" principle is the only path that keeps the verse a bracha while preserving the lexical meaning.

Q — Ibn Ezra famously hints that Moshe could not have written the last eight psukim of the Torah describing his own death and burial — so Yehoshua must have completed them. Is this defensible?

A — Rabbeinu Bachya, in his closing comment on the entire chumash, rejects Ibn Ezra by name and lays out the alternative. The kabbalah ha'amitis we possess is that Moshe wrote all of the Torah, from בראשית through לעיני כל ישראל, every letter — and he wrote not as composer but as copyist, transcribing letter-for-letter from a sefer kadmon that pre-existed creation. RBB cites the Talmudic position of R' Meir (Bava Basra 15a): Hashem dictated and Moshe wrote — ומשה כותב בדמע — Moshe wrote those final eight verses in tears, because he was copying his own death from the celestial scroll. RBB asks: ואין לתמוה אם יכתוב משה וימת שם משה... כי היה כותב מה שעתיד להיות — a prophet routinely writes future events in past-tense (the Torah's other future-as-past references — וירא ה' וינאץ — prefigure Bayis Rishon). The closing eight verses are therefore Moshe's most heroic act: he transcribed his own death, in tears, because the Torah he was copying did not stop at his lifetime, and his obedience as scribe could not stop either.

Q — 'ויבכו בני ישראל את משה... שלשים יום' already conveys that they wept for 30 days; the second clause 'ויתמו ימי בכי אבל משה' looks redundant. Why repeat that the days ended?

A — HaKtav VeHaKabbalah distinguishes two Hebrew verbs of completion. 'תמ-ם' marks completion in quality/character; 'של-ם' marks completion in quantity/duration ('לא שלם עון האמרי' = the count was incomplete; 'ושלמו ימי אבלך'). If the verse meant the count of mourning days had ended, it would say 'וישלמו.' By choosing 'ויתמו,' the Torah marks something different: the qualitative practices of 30-day aveilut (refraining from washing, haircutting, etc.) ceased after 30 days — but the quantitative grief over Moshe never ceased. Yisrael keeps mourning him 'כל ימיהם,' to this day, especially at Simchat Torah when the Torah cycle ends — 'לעורר הלב למרר בבכי אל הלקח ממנו ארון הברית.' The verse closes the parsha with both a halacha (30-day formal mourning) and a permanent ache (a sadness that never ran out).